Varying required effort during interference control in children with AD/HD: Task performance and ERPs

Johnstone, Stuart J.; Watt, Annele J.; Dimoska, Aneta

doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.03.010

Cited by 28 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 73 publications

(133 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, the N2 component was enhanced to incongruent compared to neutral stimuli, in line with both ERP studies (Heil et al, 2000;Johnstone et al, 2009;Johnstone et al, 2010) and computational models (Yeung et al, 2004;Yeung and Cohen, 2006) of the flanker N2.…”

Section: Erpssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…However, in the present study the participants may have perceived 5-item arrays (i.e., neutral, congruent and incongruent stimuli) as prevailing, and 1-item stimuli (i.e., target-alone stimuli) as deviant. Additionally, the novelty N2 has a similar timing and topography to the conflict N2 in the flanker task involving children with AD/HD (Johnstone et al, 2010), making it a possible explanation for these results.…”

Section: Erpsmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…In the flanker task, children with AD/HD show slower RTs and lower response accuracy than typically-developing children for all stimulus types (Johnstone et al, 2010;Jonkman et al, 2007;Konrad et al, 2006). Compared to typically-developing children, children with AD/HD also show a more delayed RT to incongruent stimuli compared to neutral stimuli (Jonkman et al, 2007;Ridderinkhof et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Alternatively, P3 data were low pass filtered (zero phase shift, 0.5-30 Hz, 48 dB/oct rolloff) in accordance with previous studies from our lab (e.g. Benikos and Johnstone, 2009;Johnstone et al, 2008;Johnstone et al, 2009;Johnstone et al, 2010).…”

Section: Data Quantificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to task performance indices such as reaction time (RT) and error-rates, the present study will also employ event-related potentials (ERPs), with a focus on the N2 and P3 ERP components. The N2, or "control N2", is a fronto/fronto-central negativity occurring between 200 and 400 ms after stimulus presentation in children (Folstein and Van Petten, 2008;Johnstone et al, 2010). In the flanker task the N2 is enhanced to incongruent stimuli compared to other stimuli (Heil et al, 2000;Johnstone et al, 2009;Johnstone et al, 2010;Kopp et al, 1996;Yeung et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Event-rate effects in the flanker task: ERPs and task performance in children with and without AD/HD

Johnstone

Galletta

2013

International Journal of Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Demanding tasks require a greater amount of effort, in which case individuals are required to alter their energetic-state to a level appropriate to perform the task. According to the Cognitive-Energetic Model (CEM), children with AD/HD are unable to effectively modulate their energetic state, leading to task underperformance. Using an Eriksen flanker task with varying event-rates, the current study compared the ability of typically-developing children and children with AD/HD to modulate their energetic state. In line with the CEM, it was predicted that children with AD/HD would underperform in the fast and slow eventrates. Results indicated that the groups did not differ in commission errors (i.e., incorrect responses). However, children with AD/HD made more omission errors to incongruent stimuli at the fast and slow eventrates, compared to controls. N2 amplitude was significantly larger for the AD/HD than control group in the slow event-rate. It is concluded that the energetic state modulation dysfunction in children with AD/HD results in an inability to attend to the task, as opposed to an inability to perform the task itself. Furthermore, these task performance differences did not manifest in either the N2 or P3 ERP components. Therefore, inattention in children with AD/HD may have its locus in response preparation, as opposed to stimulus processing, but more research is required to validate these conjectures. Abstract: Demanding tasks require a greater amount of effort, in which case individuals are required to alter their energetic-state to a level appropriate to perform the task. According to the CognitiveEnergetic Model (CEM), children with AD/HD are unable to effectively modulate their energetic state, leading to task underperformance. Using an Eriksen flanker task with varying event-rates, the current study compared the ability of typically-developing children and children with AD/HD to modulate their energetic state. In line with the CEM, it was predicted that children with AD/HD would underperform in the fast and slow event-rates. Results indicated that the groups did not differ in commission errors (i.e., incorrect responses). However, children with AD/HD made more omission errors (i.e., impulsively early or non-responses) to incongruent stimuli at the fast and slow event-rates, compared to controls. N2 amplitude was significantly larger for the AD/HD than control group in the slow event-rate. It is concluded that the energetic state modulation dysfunction in children with AD/HD results in an inability to attend to the task, as opposed to an inability to perform the task itself. Furthermore, these task performance differences did not manifest in either the N2 or P3 ERP components. Therefore, inattention in children with AD/HD may have its locus in response preparation, as opposed to stimulus processing, but more research is required to validate these conjectures. Highlights Children with AD/HD unable to effectively modulate energetic state  Event-rate varied during interference control in c...

show abstract